Thursday, July 12, 2012

'Much of the new evidence appears to favor Zimmerman'

Regarding the case against George Zimmerman for shooting Trayvon Martin, a topic that regularly generates heated conversations here at Change of Subject, the Orlando Sentinel is reporting:

There was little new (in discovery evidence made public today) that appears to help the state's case.

Two witnesses said they heard an argument, then the voices moved away then they heard cries for help and a gunshot.

That does not match Zimmerman's version of events. He told police there was a very brief exchange of words, then Trayvon punched him in the nose with such force that he fell to the ground.

He said the teenager climbed on top of him and began punching him and pounding his head into a sidewalk.

Most of the new evidence appears to favor Zimmerman.

A new witness whose name was blacked out told a prosecution investigator March 27 that she saw the fight and that the person on top was the one who wound up dead.

That makes two witnesses – one from an earlier evidence release - who back up Zimmerman's version that Trayvon had overpowered him....

The new records also document that Zimmerman's subdivision, where he led the Neighborhood Watch, had a bona fide problem with burglaries.

It seems pretty clear that the case against Zimmerman will be based on the inconsistencies in his various accounts to poilce. The Sentinel lists them here, but I'm still looking for a more thorough analysis of how damaging these inconsistencies are likely to be at trial.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

One of the reasons that this is "a topic that regularly generates heated conversations here at Change of Subject" is that YOU are so engaged with it, EZ. IMHO. (I reckon you'd chide me if I said "obsessed"...) According to your "Categories" list on the side there, this is post #45 for the Trayvon Martin case. And post #44 drew over 25 responses by you to comments made by the readers. Uh, that seems like a lot, for something that has not really had that much new material to chew over, all things considered.

Of course, it's your blog, etc., etc., and I gotta admit people DO keep coming at you. I just find it genuinely baffling that you are so quick to respond to this topic, when, for instance, you don't seem to have responded at all to the many interesting comments about your "City smackdown" post. Just sayin'...

ZORN REPLY -- There has been a lot of new stuff dribbling out, in fact, and one reason this story interests me is that it seems to illustrate the worst of knee-jerk socio-politics...in this case on the left. From the first day they first heard of the bare (and false) outlines of the story -- wee child carrying only Skittles and iced tea walking innocently home hunted down and killed like a dog by enormous racist vigilante -- many of my friends on the left abandoned every bit of skepticism with which they typically respond to criminal allegations and demanded "justice," which to them was an arrest and a charge, and accused the Sanford Police of racism/incompetence before they even knew the actual outlines of the story.
I respect the agnostics who point out that, to them, GZ's story doesn't quite add up, they remain inclined to think he's guilty even though they're not sure how this tragic game of ring-around-the-rosie actually went down. But I continue to chide those who insist on conjuring ever more outlandish scenarios that require confoundingly strange behavior from both parties in order to cling to the simple George-Bad-Trayvon-Good story that so bewitched them in the early going.

I believe one of the reasons Eric has been so persistent on this case is that so many of us, who usually agree with him, don't with his defense of Zimmerman.

The FBI has said that Zimmerman does not seem to have racist intents regarding Martin. I'm glad this has been ruled out. I believe Zimmerman profiled Martin for reasons including, but beyond race, and this has been pointed out by local police. He was playing supercop with a gun. This backfired when an ignorant Martin reacted to a stalker, not a cop.

ZORN REPLY -- It may be that TM didn't see him as a stalker so much as he saw him as a jerk who clearly suspected him (TM) of being up to no good, and THIS angered him. In other words, there's a good deal of space between stalking someone -- which is a menacing act -- and simply making it clear that you think they're up to no good and you've got your eye on them (or are trying to), which is an insulting act.
As I've noted before, unfamiliarity plus darkness plus testosterone is often a bad combination. Racial differences make it worse. Guns can make it fatal.

Is there a vast cultural divide here, or am I missing something? Consider the following:

Zimmerman may or may not have actually asked the person (Treyvon Martin) what he is doing there.

Whether Zimmerman said anything or not, Treyvon then has at least three options when the two meet (regardless of who spoke first).

(1) He can say that he is visiting his uncle but he appreciates this guy keeping an eye on the neighborhood (after all Zimmerman is looking out for the uncle's security just like everyone else's) and thanks him for using his spare time to help out.

(2) He could yell some obscenity at Zimmerman, insulting him for being overly zealous and walk away, or

(3) Recognizing that he is much bigger than Zimmerman, he could decide that he is free to beat the hell out of this annoying neighborhood watch weenie.

It is easy to see that options one (very good) and two (bad, but not a disaster) are both good outcomes in the end. Option three is what one group of people think that someone should do. As for me, option three, regardless of whether I am actually more physically powerful than Zimmerman would not even remotely occur to me as a valid choice. What does this tell us about cultural differences?

It is also important to note that up to the end Zimmerman is not even trying to use his weapon. It remains holstered through much of the assault. He still believes that the resolution should be something less than fatal - even if he is on the losing end of some beating. The final mistake is, of course, when Treyvon sees the gun, tells Zimmerman that he is going to die and tries to get his gun. From that point on his fate is sealed.

My point is that we clearly have two vastly different views of acceptable response to a given situation. Why is there this difference?

ZORN REPLY -- I'll challenge your assumption. We don't know exactly who confronted/assaulted who first. The contention of some is that GZ made the first untoward move, lunging at or grabbing for TM, perhaps pulling his gun on him.
My inclination is that this isn't true, but I don't assume as fact that it isn't true.
My broader sense is that the map and timeline show us that TM had plenty of time to get home safely if he'd merely kept walking, which, if he really was nervous about GZ, he ought to have.
That he didn't, why he didn't, seems critical to this case.

I am trying not to take sides but there is one more point to consider.

In the previous several years of this same neighborhood watch there do not appear (not a certainty, but darn close) to have been any occasions where GZ assaulted any of the individuals he suspected of lurking in the neighborhood. Given the many times GZ noted suspects and made 911 calls, this was apparently the only occurrence.

Okay, Eric has (rightfully) been all over people who've claimed that Zimmerman was much bigger than Martin, but how did we get to this idea that Martin was much bigger than Zimmerman? Martin was taller, but Zimmerman still outweighed him, even with the adjustments in their relative weights since the original story came out.

"In the previous several years of this same neighborhood watch there do not appear (not a certainty, but darn close) to have been any occasions where GZ assaulted any of the individuals he suspected of lurking in the neighborhood. Given the many times GZ noted suspects and made 911 calls, this was apparently the only occurrence."

This was also the only occurrence in which Zimmerman admitted to following a "suspect". It's also the only incident in which he's apparently said, "These a------s always get away with it." and "f---ing co---".

So where is the credible evidence that, in "following" Martin, Zimmerman ever got closer than a couple of hundred feet from him? It seems undeniable that, after he followed him into the private walkway area, he had no idea where Martin had got off to, as witnessed by his unwillingness to tell the dispatcher his home address, for fear that Martin might be lurking nearby, in the darkness. The only direct evidence you have is the testimony of Dee Dee, the "mystery" witness, who has Zimmerman chasing the lean, 6 ft. Martin some 180 yards, from one end of the complex to the other, before running him to ground and demanding "What are you doing here"? What conceivable rationale can be proposed for her keeping secret, for 3 weeks, the knowledge that some "creepy," "crazy," (her words) White man had murdered her friend? What does it say for her credibility that she was "discovered" only after the 911 recordings had been released? And you will not be permitted to "cherry pick" her testimony. You must take all or none. "But what about the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's 7 statements?" You mean like saying in one that he fell to the ground immediately after being "sucker punched," in another that he was driven backwards, staggering, for some distance? His inability even to recall accurately what he had told the dispatcher? It is apparent that he can not consistently recall even facts that would help the prosecutions case. But we all have photographic memories, no? It is on the basis of such "evidence" that Zimmerman is being made the centerpiece of an auto-da-fe.

But while I'm here, isn't it odd that yesterday's revelation that several Black street gangs, known as "Goons," were active in Zimmerman's neighborhood is being pounced upon as proof positive that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin? Strange times.

Let me point out that Zimmerman muttered the comment about "punks always getting away" only after Martin had approached to "check him out" and fled down an interior walkway in this gated community. That gives rise to "reasonable suspicion" in anyone's book, justifying an attempt to ascertain where Martin might have gone, from a safe distance, in order to direct the police to him. Might Martin have resented this? Of course. But where is the unlawful activity on Zimmerman's part? "Profiling?" That doesn't violate any right of Martin recognized by Florida law. The Equal Protection Clause is inapplicable to private action. It governs only "state action." Look it up. Pretty basic, really.

ZORN REPLY -- This snippet of tape has been dissected many ways. Got to 2:40 of this youtube video to listen to it played over and over..http://youtu.be/vNI5CA5jijw
I hear a percussive sound - P -- after the f word followed by something fairly indistinct. I don't hear anything close to the long U sound of the word "coon" that some say they hear.
In fact, as you listen, consider the suggestion I saw floated recently that, since it was raining and he was stepping out of his car, the word he says is "puddles" --
Perhaps not, but an objective listener, hearing this snippet out of context, will probably hear "puddles" before he hears "coons."
Go give it a listen.

I am reminded that a Canadian wag remarked, the other day, that it's a good thing Zimmerman didn't crouch in the bushes, in wait for Martin, and mumble a complaint about "chiggers."

So just how are we defining "following" here, anyway? Before he got out of his truck, Zimmerman observed Martin run east across the top of the "T," then turn south, heading towards the rear entrance. Martin's view of Zimmerman would have been blocked by the buildings, until he got near the top of the "T." Where is the evidence of a "following," from this point? If Martin, somewhere down the southern leg of the "T," concealed in the darkness, observed Zimmerman walking east across the top of the "T," to the intersecting street, could he reasonably construe this as a "following"? And Zimmerman, having observed Martin standing on the lawn of the 1460 residence and looking into it, and otherwise behaving oddly, in the rain, did no more than any concerned resident could lawfully have done. Is it perhaps the thought here that Zimmerman should have known to an absolute certainty that Martin could not possibly be "up to no good" because of his color and dress? Or that Zimmerman had a good Chicago style "beat down" coming for his failure to be more "respectful" of Martin?

I make no pretense of being "skilled in the law." If my comments are irksome to you, read elsewhere.

Eric - I'm not talking about the coons/cold/whatever remark (although I think it's absurd to claim that he was suddenly concerned about the weather or something when he was clearly so focused on Martin).

archon states, "...that Zimmerman muttered the comment about "punks always getting away"...". It wasn't "punks" who "always get away". It was "a--h---s" who always get away. That one is clear as a bell.

ZORN REPLY -- "Following" is not pursuing or stalking or chasing, necessarily. That's point A. Point B is that once the dispatcher says "we don't need you do that," GZ says "OK" and there's no evidence on that tape or from any witnesses (Dee Dee may be an exception, I haven't parsed her accounts) that he continued to "follow" after that point. Indeed if he had, then several minutes of following later would have put him at a far, far different place than he ended up. You have to believe that not only did her continue following him, it either turned into a round-robin chase or a hunt by Zimmerman around and around.
That remains possible but, in my mind, unlikely, and it STILL doesn't justify TM attacking GZ,if that's what he did. Forget guns and death here...if you're walking down the street, Dienne, and someone thinks you're a creep and you're following them, that person does NOT have the right to turn around and open a can of whup-ass on you.

You have a vivid imagination. Seems to have more of a recollection of what coursed that night than Zimmerman. [But we all have photographic memories, no?] Especially of events that we have never witnessed and its primary structures being that of the defendant. Pity you are not standing trial.

"I make no pretense of being "skilled in the law." If my comments are irksome to you, read elsewhere."

Your comments are not only 'irksome', they are appalling. To only find it irksome would be something you fancy.

Really, No Name? One of the bones of contention that those who think GZ is definitely guilty is that he did not get beat up, he did not have a broken nose, he did not bleed from the nose, he didn't have wet clothes or any evidence resembling a struggle or fight and therefore GZ is lying about what happened. This statement from the first officer at the scene shows that indeed, GZ was bleeding for some time. I did not say that it exonerates him or anything like that. It just lends more credence to what GZ said happened. That is not naive.

Zimmerman obviously "followed" Martin, who had a long head start on him, for perhaps 30 seconds. When the call taker said "We don't need you to do that," he replied "Ok." The question is what evidence of a "following" is there subsequent to this point?

Strange times indeed. Did anyone notice how agitated De La Rionda became during the bond hearing the other day, when O'Mara introduced into the record an image of Martin from the 7-11 video? Why did he indignantly demand to know "why on earth" O'Mara was submitting an image that "speaks volumes" about this case? It looks like we're back to the "false but true" meme, or perhaps, more accurately, "true but false." The likeness of what the hooded, 6 ft. Martin actually looked like on the evening of 2/26 panders, don't you see, to "stereotypical thought processes." Hardly deniable that, in the dark, in a high-crime neighborhood, Archie Bunker would have crossed the street to avoid him, and he just might have been followed by Meathead. To keep the eye of the public fixed on the ultimate "truth," we must keep before it the image of Trayvon as an angelic child. But have we now ascended to such heights of PC that we must shut our eyes to objective reality? The same goes, of course, for the history of criminal conduct in Zimmerman's neighborhood, the habitat of roving gangs of "Goons" (to use Serino's characterization.)

The point of the whole "following" thing that you are responding to, archon, is simply Bruce's point that Zimmerman had never before assaulted any of the "suspects" he had reported to 911, the implication being that he also didn't assault this one. My point is that this is also the only time he's been known to "follow" a suspect at all, however you want to define "following". This was clearly a singular experience - obviously something about Martin really got Zimmerman's dander up that night, so I don't think we can say that just because he didn't assault any other "suspect" that it's likely that he didn't assault this one either - I don't think we can say one way or another.

And my point is that, "if we can't say one way or the other," a man has been charged with murder, and his life ruined, without probable cause. Not to drive this right into the ground, but it can't rationally be disputed that, after Zimmerman made the comment some find so damning, he lost sight of Martin, and there is not a grain of credible evidence for the idea that he resumed the "pursuit." As for his failure to try to keep track of suspicious individuals in the past, in order to be able to direct the police to them, your point eludes me. Had he done so, you would be claiming he was acting in accord with established habit. Heads you win, tails you win. And what makes you so sure that past suspects ran from him, anyway? The long and short of it is that, if the prosecution invites the jury to speculate, as you are doing here, any conviction is headed for certain reversal on appeal.

Reading comprehension, please, archon. We can't say one way or another whether Zimmerman did or didn't assault Martin *solely based on the fact that he didn't assault any of the other suspects*.

I mean, Marilyn Lemak had never harmed her kids before, but that doesn't mean she didn't kill them.

The one thing we do know in this case is that Zimmerman killed Martin, so obviously *something* was different that night than all the other times Zimmerman has reported "suspects" to 311/911.

ZORN REPLY -- Yes, which I would argue is somewhat indicative of MARTIN acting differently than others on whom Zimmerman affixed his steely gaze of suspicion. Why was THIS event different from the others?

Since "pursuit" and "following" would suggest that Zimmerman knew where Martin was and consciously went the same places, I'm not aware of any evidence that suggests that he can be tagged with either term after he broke off the conversation with the 911 dispatcher.

But there certainly seems to be circumstantial evidence that Zimmerman, not knowing where Martin was, went looking for him.

First of all, that was his admitted intent earlier.

Secondly, near the end of the 911 call, after he and the dispatcher have agreed that the police will meet him at the mailboxes, Zimmerman changes his mind and tells the dispatcher to have the police call his cell phone, and he'll advise them of his location then. By that time, the dispatcher already has clear instructions for the police about where Zimmerman can be found, and no further detail on that point is necessary. If he's going directly back to his truck, that is.

Some folks interpret Zimmerman's location indecision to be an indication that he is looking for an address, but he doesn't need an address to tell the police where he'll be. He and the dispatcher have already agreed that it'll be by the mailboxes. And if the police are coming to meet him, he doesn't need to give them an address to tell them where he lost sight of Martin; he's going to tell them that himself when he meets them.

It also seems to me that the amount of time -- approximately three minutes, I think -- from the end of Zimmerman's 911 call to the dropping of Martin's call with his girlfriend was plenty of time for Zimmerman to have gone much further back toward his truck than merely to the interesection of the T, if he was going back there directly.

Since he'd admitted following Martin earlier, changed his mind when talking to the dispatcher about going back to his truck after previously agreeing that the police would meet him there, gave clear indication in his modified directions that he was going to be at some unknown location other than his truck, had previously expressed displeasure at people like Martin getting away, and didn't make it very far toward his truck before encountering Martin, the most likely scenario to me seems to be that he continued looking for Martin even after concluding his 911 call.

ZORN REPLY -- Either way, though, how does he "find" Martin several minutes just yards from the T if Martin was just walking home? Martin has a huge head start on Zimmerman and no reason whatsoever to hide out of fear... he makes it home easily if he walks normally, even more easily if he hot-foots it. So who was seeking a confrontation? That becomes a key question as we get into the matter of whom we believe about which of the two started the fight.
If it was Zimmerman and that can be proven, he's going down for this. But I haven't seen nearly enough evidence so far to establish that.

--Zimmerman says he walked east across the top of the "T" over to Retreat View Circle to get both the name of a street and a house address. As I understand it from Jeralyn Merritt, who has reviewed all the videos, there is no street sign on Twin Trees, near where he was parked, since it is a private way. Having last seen Martin running south towards the rear entrance, I don't doubt Zimmerman took a look down Retreat View Circle. He says he spent some time there, trying to get his flashlight working. From the top of the "T," he had a view of any traffic approaching his truck. As concerns his "expressed displeasure," the figure Zimmerman had seen inexplicably flee from him was not a child who slept with teddy bears every night. It was the youth we see in the 7-11 video. It would have been quite irrational of him, at this point, not to suspect that Martin was indeed "up to no good," and possibly armed. We know that the conflict began near the top of the "T," because of the witnesses and the dropped key chain. I will not attempt to reason you out of your suspicion that Zimmerman ventured down the southern leg of the walkway, illuminated only by the occasional patio light, beating the bushes for Martin. Suspicion, however, is not "probable cause." Do you really expect the jury to be allowed to rely on its imagination to fill in the blanks about who first struck who, etc.?

When you're avoiding somebody, you don't know you have a "huge" head start unless you're looking at your pursuer when he starts. It's pretty apparent that Martin and Zimmerman lost eye contact with each other -- how did Martin know how much time he had?

Secondly, why would he be fleeing full speed in abject fear? Does he know for sure that Zimmerman will chase him, or does he just think that he's being followed? If you suspect you're being followed, but you aren't quite sure, it's a perfectly natural reaction to duck behind a nearby obstruction to see if the person you're wondering about continues to come your way.

Your own link to Zimmerman's inconsistencies notes that he told police that Martin jumped out of bushes to accost him. The place where he pointed to on retelling the story didn't have bushes, but there was plenty of fencing to duck behind. So Martin's hiding is consistent with Zimmerman's account.

The "walked home, then turned around" theory doesn't make much practical sense. if Martin had just been walking directly home, then turned around on the same path and came back, how could Zimmerman not have seen him either time he crossed the top of the T? Even if you buy the to me unbelievable premise that Zimmerman was just looking for an address, doesn't he keep one eye out for the guy who's up to no good somewhere in the vicinity? If that guy is on the path leaving, or on the path reapproaching, how does Zimmerman miss him when he goes by the interesection on the way east or comes back to it on his westbound return?

I notice that lots of buyers of the Zimmerman account keep repeating the line that if Martin had just gone directly home, he would have made it easily. Not necessarily. As everyone has adjusted Zimmerman's weight downward to more accurately reflect his relative size for purposes of a fight with Martin, they seem to have forgotten to abandon the premise that Zimmerman was a slug with no chance of keeping Martin in sight. If Martin had gone directly on the path home, maybe the confrontation would have happened earlier and farther down the path -- where Zimmerman would have spotted him.

"Who was seeking a confrontation" certainly is a key question. Of course, Zimmerman says that it was Martin. But as far as I know, there's nothing in his history, either on that night or before, that says that Martin sought confrontations. Zimmerman himself said that Martin ran from him. Zimmerman himself said he was following Martin. What makes it so easy to believe that Martin abandoned his avoidance and became murderous at the same time that Zimmerman abandoned his perp hunt mode and became Walter Mitty?

ZORN REPLY -- THe sounds on the NEN tape Zimmerman made to Sanford police highly suggest that he broke off following TM when the dispatcher said police didn't need him to do that. Now he may have resumed his quick movements after the call ended -- anything's possible -- and TM may have been just a hidin' there waiting to see what GZ was up to -- anything's possible. But the reasonable doubt burden is substantial here.

All conjecture about which way Trayvon Martin ran when GZ lost sight of him is premature and possibly totally irrelevant to anything regarding GZ's claim of self-defense. Theories that Martin "doubled back" or "hid" or "popped out" from some hiding spot have not evidence to back them up.

The newly released evidence shows that GZ had previously formed an assumption that "suspects" ran out of the gated complex along a certain path. If there is ever a trial, perhaps that will be part of the evidence agaisnt GZ.

You appear to have a belief that the only thing that matters to the outcome to the trial is whether GZ can establish he was attcked by Trayvon Martin. But for a self-defense claim to stand up according to the law, the nature of the attack had to be such that most people -- not simply GZ at that moment -- would have felt a need to resort to lethal force to protect themselves.

"Inconsistencies" in GZ's account may ultimately matter less to a judge or jury than whether GZ was prone to suspicion, fear and panicky behavior. Bear in mind, too, that the charge of murder 2 puts the burden on the state to demonstrate that GZ's mindset showed a depraved indifference to human life.

If there is a trial, its unfoldment may focus a great deal on GZ's patterns of behavior prior and leading up to the fatal encounter to Trayvon Martin. The jury may come to believe that is highly relevant to the moment the shot was fired.

GZ in innocent until proven guilty in a court of law beyond all shadow of a reasonable doubt. But a court of law is not a court of public opinion. The judge in this case has given every indication he intends to follow the law and only the law. There is very little way to know, absent an actual trial, how the law applies here.

By the way, it occurs to me to add that if Trayvon Martin had been female, perceptions of this case would be radically different -- even if she was a white female basketball player who could have easily broken Zimmerman's nose and pinned him to the ground.

Just something to think about in the face of the temptation to pretend that cultural bias has nothing to do with how we evaluate the evidence in this case.

ZORN REPLY -- Contemporaneously GZ says which TM ran. Exactly how you imagine he got back to the T WITHOUT doubling back or playing some game of cat and mouse with GZ I can't fathom.

INALB no, I don't think very much of Zimmerman's "patterns of behavior" will have much bearing on this case. It's going to come down to who attacked whom and, if one has to give the benefit of the doubt to GZ that he was attacked and he was losing the fight, then it will come down to whether he was in reasonable fear of great bodily harm. The broken nose and lacerated head would go a long way toward establishing that, but maybe you can find 12 jurors who will all say no, he was just getting a mild butt-kicking and had no reasonable fear that TM was going to keep pounding his head into the sidewalk until knocking him out, etc.
Even then, though, you don't get murder 2.... you get GZ in an unreasonable panic killing a kid whom he should have let give him a little whipping. Manslaughter. But even that's a stretch.
OTOH, if you get all 12 to agree that GZ attacked hapless TM beyond a reasonable doubt, then you may well get Murder 2. I keep waiting to hear that case persuasively made.

"Zimmerman says he walked east across the top of the "T" over to Retreat View Circle to get both the name of a street and a house address"

Yes, but why should anyone believe his after-the-fact explanation when there was no need for the address at the time? After he said he didn't know what address he was at, he and the dispatcher agreed that the officers could find him at his truck at the mailboxes. No street name necessary at that time. Then he changed his mind, and told the dispatcher that the police could find him at a location to be named later.

"It would have been quite irrational of him, at this point, not to suspect that Martin was indeed "up to no good," and possibly armed."

And the question is what Zimmerman did in response to that suspicion. Seems to me that it would have been irrational for Zimmerman to continue searching for this potentially armed up to no good uknown person without being prepared to escalate things. I can't imagine going looking for someone who might have a gun without being prepared to use the gun I have.

"Suspicion, however, is not "probable cause." Do you really expect the jury to be allowed to rely on its imagination to fill in the blanks about who first struck who, etc.?"

I wouldn't expect them to do that, but they would only have to once Zimmerman presents evidence that he shot Martin in self defense. "Evidence" being something presented to the judge to describe the circumstances leading to the shooting.

Zimmerman has the right to do that now. What do you suppose he might be waiting for?

[In case my point above wasn't clear, had GZ followed an unarmed teenage girl -- even a very tall black girl in a hoodie who was meandering aimlessly through a gated community in the rain -- if that girl had attacked him, broken his nose and even slammed his head to the concrete, even is she had attempted to disarm her stalker -- popular opinion about who was repsonsible and what was legally justifiable would most likely be quite different, attracting a different group of supporters.]

O'Mara just filed a motion asking Lester to recuse himself. He points out to the judge that the public has expressed its interest in the issue of bias through "Internet forums," heh. Link to motion on gzlegal.

I recall that the prosecutor, in the Amanda Knox trial, at one point admitted to the jury that he could not come up with a motive. He did, however, present them with a reconstruction of the crime, albeit grossly improbable. Is Corey going to be able to do the same? So why don't you guys step into her designer shoes, and tell me what "scenario" she is going to propose? Remember: no "cherry picking" Dee Dee's testimony.

Regarding Lester to recuse himself, it's an interesting development. It just goes to show how unpredictable a real trial is -- and how silly it is imagine forward how it will go. Nobody can predict what O'Mara will do next. Nobody can predict what Corey will do next.

Who knows how Lester will receive this motion to recuse himself? It seems to me, in filing it, that O'Mara overlooked one rather large piece of recent history and law. At issue in the 2nd bond hearing was whether GZ was a flight risk. O'Mara never addressed that. Instead, he said that the only reason his client had moved around money in peculiar ways and hidden a valid passport was because he was immature, emotional and didn't trust the system. Not surprisingly, Judge Lester ruled such a person looked like a flight risk and disrespected the Court.

Now O'Mara has come back to say his client doesn't respect the Court and is suspicious of the system.

"What makes it so easy to believe that Martin abandoned his avoidance and became murderous at the same time that Zimmerman abandoned his perp hunt mode and became Walter Mitty?"

Good point. It's interesting that Zimmerman would accuse the judge of bias when his, and his wife's, lying in court caused the judge to act as he did. I'm getting tired of this "I'm the victim here!" game.

To come at this another way, if the prosecution is unable to propose a a more likely scenario than the account offered by Zimmerman, then his account, in the mind of the jury, will be validated. The prosecution can't just seize on isolated "discrepancies" in Zimmerman's testimony to create doubt about his credibility, without somehow integrating these doubts into a coherent narrative, then proceed directly to the self-defense issues. During the recent bond hearing, De La Rionda promised to prove that "He [Zimmerman] chases him and at some point the victim does hit him." But how? And how do you handle Dee Dee? I have visited many forums, and invited a coherent alternative to Zimmerman's testimony from those making a great to do about his credibility, and have yet to get a response. I would suggest this is what lawyers call "admission by silence." The most plausible explanation for the minor differences in Zimmerman's several statements is that he really doesn't have a good memory.

George's account will only be validated, if a jury believes him and ascribes to him a certain level of credibility. No jury is required to believe an incredible story. All the prosecution has to prove is a certain state of (depraved) mind on the part of George. Based on the evidence (content of the tapes), that's a fairly easy thing to establish. Maybe not murder 2, but definitely involuntary manslaughter. All the other stuff (who hit who, who yelled, who hit first, who was on top, etc..etc..) will most likely be poked at a little bit, but in the end prove to be fairly irrelevant because they can not be conclusively proven and/or will be considered self serving.

ZORN REPLY -- I'm having a hard time deciding which is worse, your understanding of the evidence or your understanding of the law.

"ZORN REPLY -- Contemporaneously GZ says which TM ran. Exactly how you imagine he got back to the T WITHOUT doubling back or playing some game of cat and mouse with GZ I can't fathom."

My whole point is that nobody has to imagine what GZ himself didn't see in the dark, since we know he completely lost sight of TM and had "no idea where this guy" was. Nobody has to supply a theory of why TM took the course that he did and I doubt anyone will at the trial. Yes, GZ claims he saw TM take off in a certain direction, the direction he had already concluded "suspects" usually took when they were trying to escape the gated community. In reality, TM may have zig-zagged around.

TM may have taken a route of avoidance or observation that was perfectly legal, perfectly innocent of intent to harm GZ and perfectly in accordance with his own sane views of how best to avoid a stalker that night in a neighborhood he didn't know well and how best to protect himself and a younger child at home against a pursuer and possible attacker.

Your description of "cat and mouse" is subjective and prejudicial. The fact that you can't fathom why a 17 year old would not behave as you would or how you imagine all 17 year olds should doesn't mean this 17 year old wasn't justified in his behavior. GZ's credibility has yet to be tested by cross-examination, and until it is, we can't be sure that his behavior that night was justified or rational.

In America, a trial is the process we have for sorting out deadly disputes. What is in dispute is not whether TM should have gone home. He was under no obligation to go anywhere that night to avoid getting killed. What is in dispute is GZ's claim of self-defense, which requires more than that GZ produce evidence of a broken nose and head cuts.

ZORN REPLY -- as others have said, I doubt he'll take the stand. And I'm not at all sure that the broken nose and bloody head don't on their own, create reasonable doubt. And what we can reasonably conjecture about TM's state of mind by his "zig-zagging" and how this dovetails with/contradicts the girlfriend's testimony will be relevant. It's important that he didn't go straight home when he had the time to do so. Common sense ought to tell you that.

I wanted to add to my comment that "in reality, TM may have zig-zagged around" to also say that he may have come to a complete stop somewhere in the dark where he felt GZ could not see him, and tried to observe GZ from there. He may have taken further evasive action after that. You really have to lack any imagination not to be able to imagine why a teenager might behave this way when being pursued by an adult stranger.

In the many forums you've visited, i'll take a wild guess that the people believe that the conclusions they've drawn represent a clear-eyed view of the case that any reasonable person should see is the obvious conclusion.

A jury very often ends up seeing something different than what the general public sees. A jury might it have it hammered at them repeatedly that GZ told the police "I don't have a good memory in general" and "Things happened so fast, I really don't know" -- to the point where it eats away at the jury's ability to believe GZ's report of the most critical moments of the encounter. Plus, you have no idea how GZ will hold up to cross-examination.

I think it is perfectly OK to say "From what I've heard, I believe George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin in self-defense." But it is silly to say "Obviously GZ will be acquitted at trial, and if he isn't, that will prove he was railroaded by an evil conspiracy." I think if you kill somebody, you should be prepared to face being cross-examined about it in a court, not just a police station.

Mr. Zorn, I am pretty much convinced that you are not able to distinguish relevant issues from sub issues. You fail to see the forest through the trees. Please, carry on. Don't let anybody interrupt you pontificating.

Actually, in the forums I've visited, including this one, I have yet to hear a plausible, coherent, intelligible alternative to George's testimony of the events of 2/26. A jury is not going to be allowed, whoever the judge, to pull from thin air a finding that George assaulted or "provoked" Martin, for purposes of evaluating the self-defense issues.

Take that back--I do recall one scenario, can't remember where, that has George fleetly racing south down Twin Trees, cutting over somehow to the interior walkway, near the Green residence, intercepting Trayvon and forcing him back north, and finally catching up with him 40 ft. or so south of the "T." Trayvon, terrified, strikes him, and George involuntarily tosses his key ring and flashlight to the "T" as he falls backwards, getting some trivial scratches on his head as he lands on the concrete. He then "pulls his gun," and Trayvon tries to wrestle it away from him, screaming desperately. I forget the rest of it.

George started provoking and (in a broad liberal sense) assaulting Trayvon when he started to follow him from his car for an extended duration of time. George following Trayvon in the manner he did, could by all accounts be described as a threatening person for Trayvon in the eyes of any reasonable person. It is against the law to approach another person in a menacing manner. It's a criminal offense even. Hence why George was so quick to go on the record and state that he was just simply looking for an address to point out and give directions where he was. Furthermore, George's intent to threaten and intimidate Trayvon with a depraved state of mind, can be inferred from the fact that George was determined to "not let this one get away" by aggressively following him while being armed with a deadly weapon. George, by himself, created all the relevant and lethal circumstances that lead to a scenario where this tragic event could take place.

ZORN REPLY-- if you hear a noise in your alley and you go out to investigate it, are you provoking to the point of nearly assaulting the person back there? No? Right. Again, you seem to knownext to nothing about the law. Jurors will not be thus handicapped

Not only are you making an extremely weak analogy (and you have a tendency to do that more), but more importantly, you're now starting to font like a 5 year old. In any case, if it's dark outside and you are walking around in a neighborhood you have every right to be in with your candy snack talking to your teenage sweetheart, some strange guy following your every move from his car for an extended period of time can be considered threatening/menacing by any standard. A person is justified to (proportionally) defend him or herself from a menacing threat by any means. George should have identified himself and defuse any tension. But he didn't. He's responsible (and will be held responsible) for everything that happened after.

ZORN REPLY -- again,you're wrong on the facts and wrong on the law. Other than that.....

I have a slight advantage over some of you in that, having once been a Liberal, I know how you think, and I know why the "narrative," as it has been crafted, is so dear to you. It is because George Zimmerman is the very incarnation of the sinister darkness of the Southern soul. Bet he was, what was that word Lester used, flaunting? yes, flaunting the Stars and Bars on the rear bumper of his pickup.

Eh, not really archon. I doubt there are many people that think of George as this terrible individual, or the devil incarnated. More like a putz with poor decision making skills, that messed up terribly and highly reckless.

"An unnamed witness who grew up around George Zimmerman contacted authorities after the shooting death of Trayvon Martin because she feared that Zimmerman was motivated by a prejudice against black people, she said in recorded conversations with investigators. The witness also alleges that Zimmerman molested her over the course of a decade, starting when she was 6 years old."

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.